Space Weather Editorial Board Telecon - Meeting=
Archive

Space Weather Editorial Board Luncheon - Dec 10

Agenda circulated is as indicated in black font - notes taken du=
ring the telecon added in blue. Please add to these notes as you are =
able.

An=
nual Report from the Editor-in-Chief , Louis Lanzerotti (5 min)&n=
bsp; -- Dr Lanzerotti reviewed the ann=
ual report and added information on some of the unique practices of this jo=
urnal and his editorial practices, including the topical diversity, time to=
acceptance, and quality editing of articles.

Annual Report from AGU / Wil=
ey , Brooks Hanson (5 min) -- Dr H=
anson mentioned that this journal is the highest rated for satisfaction of =
the peer review process. Regarding the impact factor, the more important po=
int is that we want to work to increase visibility of the Journal. Le=
ss concerned about impact factor, more concerned with increasing the reader=
ship.Working to get the content indexed through IEEE, =
which will increase visibility.Working the partnership with URSI. Explicit co-sponsorships fo=
r all journals need refreshing including the one for ISES. Phased in =
development of new web site for all journals. For SW, there is new explicit=
branding and better search functions. Can cross reference other journals a=
s well.

Presentations:

Brooks Hanson: New Wiley capabilitie=
s for efficient production of the Quarterly (5 - 10 min)-- Brooks highlighted some new publication =
features from Wiley. Will be able to customize widgets to feature con=
tent in ways unique to each journal. One issue is that the layout for=
the Quarterly is done separately and "by hand". As such, t=
he Quarterly appears only as a PDF and is not searchable in the same way th=
at the Journals are. This is something we want to change. One drawbac=
k now is that the editor's choice column does not go through the regular pe=
er review submission and editing process and so doesn't appear except withi=
n the Quarterly PDF files. It is thought that the new process for creating =
special issues, or special collections, can be used to layout the SW Quarte=
rly. Brooks described the special collection features, covers, specific con=
tent, editorials. Can make an ereader of it, print, etc. A collection=
can be added to over time. Collections will be composed by the=
editors or staff. Haven't yet opened the concept to sponsored collections =
but that can be done in time. The architecture is XML based and so it is po=
ssible to create a few layout custom templates for the presentation of SWQ =
content. Hopefully in the future, we should be able to create a Quart=
erly in about a day, perhaps even in response to a new, late breaking paper=
. Louis mentioned that the SWJ content lends itself very well to spec=
ial collections citing satellite drag papers as an example. It will be a ne=
w task to editors to define links within a journal or to link to related co=
ntent in another journal. One article can be mapped to many collectio=
ns.

Robert McCoy: Relationship bet=
ween AMS and AGU re Space Weather and application to the Space Weather Jour=
nal/Quarterly (5-10 min). Ref:AMS Space Weather Policy Sta=
tement This to=
pic did not get a thorough discussion due to lack of time. Bob mentio=
ned that he could inquire regarding a potential partnership between AMS and=
AGU on this journal and/or other related activities.

Go around the table, each person contributing their thoughts on the fol=
lowing (~1-2 min, each):

Suggestions for SW Journal articles, features, etc.

Suggestions on the future direction for the Journal and Quarterly

Suggestions for further App improvements

Any other topic needing attention by this board ...

Comment: we're not publication expe=
rts, we're space weather experts. There may be new ways to present co=
ntent but we're not the experts to decide what publication methods make sen=
se, is the support there for that? Answer: we have these issues acros=
s all the journals but in different forms. Brooks agrees we need to a=
ddress these needs better.

To some degree the space weather co=
mmunity is in formation, it is a new and emerging community. Reaching the r=
esearchers, the operational practitioners, the stakeholders must take sever=
al forms and our impact can be difficult to measure.

This journal can do a great deal in=
the research to operations area. No organization has done a good job=
in this area.

How to reach those we want to reach=
? How to identify those with an interest in the content when the comm=
unity is still emerging? Answer is not clear.

Quarterly is ideal for reaching the=
audience that is emerging or hidden.

AGU has new position Director of Pu=
blic Affairs, Lexi Schultz, who has experience with the hill, working with =
us on optimizing distribution list. Art Charo has offered his distribution =
list as well.

Web transitions can be difficult. &=
nbsp;

This journal needs firm support fro=
m AGU because we may not have many strong space weather storms in the curre=
nt solar cycle. The community needs the support from AGU in the same =
manner that the earthquake community needs support when there haven't been =
recent quakes.

Proposal to agencies? Wants t=
o better understand what the major need is. What do we really need the supp=
ort for?

Want to know that AGU wants to supp=
ort this journal, other orgs may be better at this point.

Klimchuk: AGU has been suppor=
tive of space weather; there have been xcellent interactions with Brooks an=
d Lexi. AGU cites the SWJ and SWQ as a model, they want it to be succ=
essful as the model for other disciplines.

Idea is to optimize the distributio=
n methods to the various audiences. Optimize and target the content t=
o the audiences.

Potential for advertisers is though=
t to be there. Perhaps think of this as sponsorship ads rather than t=
raditional advertising instead?

SW has a low subscription base.&nbs=
p; What if SW was an open access model? Is that financially viable an=
d would that provide a broader reader base, especially to those that don't =
traditionally subscribe to academic journals?

Who is the prime audience? Th=
is is thought to need better definition. May not have a prime audienc=
e but rather many factions, complex Venn diagram. There is no one com=
munity. Journal reaches out across all these audiences. On this=
basis, the impact factor is meaningless. Brooks wants to focus on se=
eing the the content is getting to the right audiences. Want to incre=
ase visibility.

Open access could provide educators=
with ability to tie the content to lesson plans. Some preliminary wo=
rk on this has been done and can be looked at further.

AMS has a culture perhaps better su=
ited to this journal? It is also thought that AGU's link to our science res=
earch community is vitally important and not to be discarded.

Capture action items =E2=80=93 determine next meeting/telecon date&nbsp=
; -- all agreed the group would contin=
ue with telecons for the near future (2 per month for now).

Potentially will have some informati=
on on the drafting of Terms of Reference for Editor/Editorial Board<=
/li>

Some may wish to stay in the room past the nominal luncheon time for ex=
tended discussion, if schedules allow.

END OF AGENDA

Telecon December 2, 2013

Agenda circulated is as indicated in black font - notes taken du=
ring the telecon are added in blue.Please add to these no=
tes as you are able.

Purpose of the Telecon: Discussion where all can =
voice opinions that help identify key issues and form a consensus view on h=
ow to move forward.

1. The Space Weather Journal app is released. See=
=
announcement about to be submitted to SPA News, Solar News, and PEN.&nb=
sp; Please edit and submit to additional newsletters as is appropriate (cop=
y to Louis, Howard, and Brooks please!).

special section, nearly completed, devoted to the CRATeR mission and th=
e radiation environment around the Moon

10th year anniversary

assistance needed from editorial board or AGU?

Notes from the meeting.

All need to take a look at the Annu=
al Report in anticipation of our AGU lunch meeting. Louis noted sever=
al encouraging statistics. Average times to acceptance and median tim=
es to acceptance are as good as other journals; this is an especially stron=
g statistic in light of the nature of the writing style required. The=
Citation statistic is not as good as we would like to see. Louis and=
others have started to address this via normal, good editorial practices a=
nd we should expect to see the effects in the coming year. For example, the=
re has been more examination of the references cited in the papers to ensur=
e appropriate referencing of papers that may have been as readily available=
to the community . The number of submissions are increasing, citatio=
ns are increasing as well.

Re the Q4 2013 SW Quarterly: =
Lou and AGU are ready to move it along. Brooks noted that AGU is read=
y togo forward with this Q4 qu=
arterly "as we have always done". Lou and Brooks have the action to connect the appropriat=
e parties to make progress on this.

This quarterly was, at one time, go=
ing to be the 10th anniversary edition. This could also be framed as the beginning of the next decad=
e.

There was a suggestion that we inst=
ead do a 11-year solar cycle anniversary edition, as this would be the most=
appropriate anniversary cycle for space weather research. This sugge=
stion seemed to resonant well with the telecon participants and so may well=
be what happens.Re the =
updated text for the website: The text could also be included i=
n the iPad app? All on the telecon were invited to send any last comm=
ents for the updated text. Brooks will do the final editing incorpora=
ting this input, circulate back to all on the telecon and to the AGU public=
ations committee for approval.

3. Publication issues to address:

Near term:

Establish distribution priorities for Quarterly (print vs electronic), =
update distribution list. In the=
past a few individuals did this manually via a phone call.AGU can update the committee people, need more=
work on the strategy for this.

Prototype layout of Quarterly via standard/custom Wiley Special Section=
templates. Barbara visite=
d with Brooks last week to view early "wireframes" and screenshot=
s of the web interface that can be used to create "Special Sections&qu=
ot; from/for the AGU journals. With some custom templates, this mecha=
nism may solve our problem of having two parallel layout processes for the =
journal and the quarterly. More information to come on this in Decemb=
er so that all can assess whether this suggestion is a concept or can be a =
real possibility.

Proposal to NSF and NASA re distribution of Quarterly and Writer Suppor=
t. No news on this today. =
This is a concept with broad support among telecon participants; we need on=
ly move this forward as an action?

Notes from the telecon: Will want to define roles for editor=
ial board members. To be listed on the masthead, AGU requires editors=
have a specific role, as opposed to simply an advisory role. Lou: the editorial board was selected to a cover the wide range of to=
pics that Space Weather covers, it was used not to handle papers but rather=
to give ideas for the papers, serve as expert reviewers, and solicit non-t=
echnical articles. Question: How do boards operate on other journals?=
Brooks: one issue is to balance the recognition value versus the depth of =
role played -- across all AGU journals. It was noted that the current=
board does include world-wide participation to ensure the broadest reach p=
ossible, there are plans to continue this in the future.We understand that AGU wants to place SWJ in the context of the other jou=
rnals, we also need understanding that this journal is different and needs =
a lot of different kinds of input, from an editorial board with members fro=
m across the world.

Some folks may think this journal i=
s more limited in scope than it is. We have a much broader audience t=
han is known and need to ensure our board reflects this base and is able to=
bring focus toward all those areas.Bob Robinson, Howard Singer, and Bob McCoy will start by writing a dr=
aft Terms of Reference for the SWJ/SWQ editorial organization. =
One suggestion is to ensure the board=
has quarterly telecons in the future. Assuming we are able to write =
a TOR acceptable to all parties involved, this would serve as a initial SOW=
for future editors, editorial board members, and/or any advisory board mem=
bers. The TOR should contain a clause that it be re-examined and upda=
ted at the beginning of each editor-in-chief's term.

Many of our readers are not contrib=
utors or practitioners in space weather research; these folks may not acces=
s the journal web site directly or cite the articles in a manner that can b=
e "counted". Assessing that "impact" will be impo=
rtant as the journal moves forward.

Mid term:

Address factors behind access/citation rate. No time for full discussion of this item.

Formulate plan for broader electronic access of journal/quarterly.&nbsp=
; No time for full discussion of this =
item.

Capture history of the journal and quarterly in accessible place.&nbsp=
; Bob Robinson found additional materi=
als to add; please take a look and see what you have to contribute to the h=
istory page.

Longer term:

Explore/expand partnerships: AMS, AIAA. Bob McCoy will start this discussion at the AGU luncheon.=
We will post a summary of that, and any other materials to this site=
for those unable to attend that lunch.

Added an item: How to assess the f=
ull "impact" of the journal, when the access/citation stats don't=
tell the full story.

4. Topics for the AGU meeting of the editorial board:=
p>

Suggestions for further App improvements to make it even more useful fo=
r readers and subscribers and users.

Suggestions for SW Journal and SW Quarterly articles, features, etc.

McCoy: Relationship between AMS an=
d AGU re Space Weather and application to the Space Weather Journal/Quarter=
ly (5-10 min). Collaboration? Link to the AMS Policy Statement =
on Space Weather. There may be a policy statement on Space Weather by AGU? =
Klimchuk can share that process (website with form?). What group can =
lead that?

Lunchtime entertainment talk on ca=
pabilities for production of the Quarterly. Brooks will send slides a=
head of time (<15 min)

Potentially will have some informa=
tion on Terms of Reference for Editor/Editorial Board

Some may wish to stay in the room past the nominal luncheon time for ex=
tended discussion, if our meeting obligations allow.

END OF TELECON We need to cove=
r this and end in one hour. Please help with the discussions to accom=
plish this and afterwards by emailing additional thoughts, suggestions, and=
materials to the group.

Telecon September 21, 2013

Agenda circulated is as indicated in black font - notes taken during the=
telecon are added in blue. Please add to these notes as you are able.

Purpose of the Telecon: Discussion where all can =
voice opinions that help identify key issues and form a consensus view on h=
ow to move forward.

Background: What precipitated this =
interaction? There is a new publications lead at AGU, Brooks Hanson a=
nd he would like to bring his prior experience at Science to the journals a=
t AGU. Space Weather has some of the same challenges as EOS. It=
is one of the most expensive journals to produce and so we all need to loo=
k closely at what is driving those costs to ensure our investments are expe=
nded in the most advantageous manner possible. Also Louis indicated h=
e will want to step down as editor eventually, perhaps as soon as the end o=
f December 2013. AGU wants us to examine the new publishing opportuni=
ties provided by the Wiley platform to further our community's vision for t=
he Space Weather Journal and the Quarterly. Last, the two production =
paths for the Space Weather and for the Quarterly results in some costly in=
efficiencies. AGU wants us to understand those inefficiencies and pro=
vide input as AGU works to address them. Brooks emphasized that AGU wants t=
o promote the Space Weather Journal and Quarterly and bring more readers to=
it. AGU supports and wants to continue it. He needs our input<=
/span> to take potential ideas forward=
.

There was some discussion on the ov=
erlap between the JGR-space physics, Radio Science, and Space Weather journ=
als. It was noted that Space Weather covers a much broader range of t=
opics than Radio Science. It is thought that there were as many as 10 paper=
s in the SWJ in the past year that could have gone into Radio Science and i=
t is thought the same in reverse could be true. Suggestion: Cou=
ld we re-vector Space Weather Quarterly to be more like the IEEE magazines =
and feature papers from Radio Science Articles and JGR as well? Perha=
ps there should be more tutorial-type papers? The Space Weather Journ=
al provides a home for articles that would not appear in, or be appropriate=
for the science journals. The Editors Choice column, which is part o=
f what makes the SWJ/SWQ unique, went away for a while but has now been re-=
instituted. This mechanism could be used for the purpose of bringing attent=
ion to relevant content that appears across all the relevant journals.&nbsp=
; Also, AGU wants to find ways to help authors better vector their submissi=
ons to the most appropriate journal and will encourage more communication b=
etween the journal editors for this purpose.

The web site notes that there is a =
partnership between the Space Weather Quarterly and there International Spa=
ce Environment Center. We will want to explore that partnership more =
and how we can utilize that partnership to bring greater visibility to the =
Journal and Quarterly.

There are a variety of other underl=
ying issues that we need to take up, including how to maintain the print-ve=
rsion distribution list for the Quarterly.

Total yearly cost for the quarterly=
is on the order of $100k for ~1400 subscribers.

Suggestion: Examine more effi=
cient ways to re-compose and re-layout content for the quarterly.

Is it a core value that the Quarter=
ly must be printed? The quarterly was underwritten by the agencies (N=
SF actually) for half of its life. That support ended when the five-y=
ear grant expired. A new grant has not been submitted but could be in=
the future. Quarterly was instituted as a hardcopy compendium to be =
distributed to those that are not likely to access our information in other=
ways, especially policy and funding stakeholders. We want them to ha=
ve our information and to provide it in a form they are most likely to read=
.

Top-Level Points for Discussion / Is there agreement that:

There is a need for both a Space Weather Journal (SWJ) and a Space Weat=
her Quarterly (SWQ). It was note=
d that the printed version of the Quarterly has a very important purpose.&n=
bsp; It is easily dropped in a bag and read on the train or other leisurely=
activity, which is very important for time-burdened funding and policy off=
icials. We want to look at additional, innovative ways to deliver it =
and to ensure that those we want to reach with it are indeed receiving it.<=
/span> For policy makers, is it =
the print version or the electronic version that is more effective? F=
or some key audience members, the print version is probably the better form=
at this point although that is likely to change with time as more folks tu=
rn to e-readers. In the future, a quarterly distribution may not be t=
he only timescale on which we want to deliver the information; we may want =
to be able to distribute information on other time scales as well.

How about advertisers for the Quar=
terly?How much effort has there been to get advertisers.&nbsp=
; AGU's and Wiley's experience that for the size of the print run, it isn't=
traditionally thought to be cost effective. A long term sponsorship =
relationship, that includes advertisements, may work. It was mentione=
d that a proposal to the funding agencies might be well received at those a=
gencies. First, we will want to settle some of these production issue=
s so as to write the most effective proposal.

There is a suggestion that the Qua=
rterly can expand its boundaries to highlight content beyond the boundaries=
of being a reflection of the SWJ and beyond what Howard Singer has done wi=
th the Editor's Choice. Would that be an acceptable idea? Why not?&nb=
sp;

Will AGU accept in their business plan, that because the journal serves=
AGU, its members, and society in policy areas as well as contributing to s=
cience research, that at least temporarily, both the SWJ and the SWQ will c=
ontinue while changes are evaluated (establishing a proper editorial transi=
tion process, possible new publishing formats, level of support from AGU st=
aff, etc.). Is this something we want to recommend? How long to allow for t=
his process?

Regarding immediate issues, what happens on January 1? Can we entice Lo=
u to stay on to keep the journal/quarterly progressing smoothly during this=
period? What do the advisory committees recommend? What is the AGU plannin=
g? How do we work together?

Several folks voiced that it is im=
portant for Lou to stay on during this time of transition.We need an interim period where we continue wha=
t we have for now. Brooks confirmed we need a nice logic=
al plan and smooth transition. Don't want to put a specific timeframe=
. Some of the issues that space weather is facing concer=
ning distribution will only fester with time and need to be addressed.&nbsp=
; This is no criticism of the editors of Space Weather but AGU needs to cor=
rect some things that transpired before Brooks came on board.This is a high priority for Brooks. We=
have good momentum and ideas to see this through.

Regarding the new possibilities with Wiley (e.g. special collections et=
c.), what do we need to do to understand these better and perhaps see demos=
from comparable products to see how they would serve SWJ subscribers. Do t=
he new Wiley capabilities really solve the key issues related to the SWJ an=
d SWQ? It will be essential to have an iterative development process =
between the developers and the consumers.

What are the most important issues to focus on first? What should we be=
including in our next discussions?

For agenda next time.

Plan seems to be very opened ended.=
What requirements are being imposed on us from AGU? We need this so =
we can make concrete plans as soon as possible.

Impact factor of 1.37 seems to be o=
n the lower end. Will addressing that be part of our work as well?&nb=
sp; Yes.

Look at the possibility of the agen=
cies funding more.

Should we be discussing the competi=
ng journals? Should we understand the position of our journal in rela=
tion? It was suggested that the better we understand what they are doing, t=
he better we inform our strategy.